ORDER

The order passed by the District Registrar for institution of prosecution under Section 82 of the Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in proceedings dated 22.06.2023 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The second respondent filed an application under Section 77A of the Act to cancel the document registered vide document No.976/04. The District Registrar adjudicated the issue and formed a opinion that a portion to an extent of 12 cents in the subject property is to be cancelled. However, the District Registrar has further recommended for prosecution under Section 82 of the Act. The order impugned states that the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal under Section 77B of the Act before the Inspector General for Registration. Admittedly, the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedy contemplated under Section 77B of the Act before filing the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contented that Section

77A cannot be exercised for the purpose of cancelling the documents lying before the amendment and therefore, the order impugned is in violation of the amended Section 77A of the Act.

4. This Court has held that the documents registered long before the amendment and insertion of Section 77A cannot be cancelled by way of retrospective application of Section 77A of the Act. However, even before insertion of Section 77A, Section 82 was in force and in the event of any fraud or forgery, the registering authority is empowered to institute prosecution under Section 82 of the Act. In other words, there is no impediment for prosecuting the persons if the documents are registered fraudulently or by way of impersonation or otherwise.

5. In the present case, the District Registrar has elaborately considered the element of forgery with reference to Sections 463 and 470 of Indian Penal Code. A portion of the subject property has been fraudulently transferred and beyond Section 77A, the District Registrar is empowered to adjudicate the allegations of fraud with reference to other provisions of the Act and institute prosecution under Section 82.

6. It is made clear that the powers otherwise conferred on the registering authority and the appellate authority under the Act can be exercised beyond the scope of Section 77A of the Act. Therefore, while entertaining an application under Section 77A of the Act, the authorities competent are empowered to consider the issues for institution of prosecution or to deal with the allegation which are covered under Section 68 of the Act. It is not as if merely cancelling a document registered prior to the insertion of 77A alone is to be considered. In respect of old documents, the registering authority and the appellate authority are empowered to scrutinise the document based on the complaint or otherwise and form an opinion, whether the said document registered long before is fraudulent or otherwise with reference to the other provisions of the Act either under Section 68 or for a criminal prosecution under Section 82 or under any other provisions of the Act. Thus, Courts are expected to be cautious while entertaining a writ petition, whether such multiple allegations are dealt with by the competent authorities on a complaint filed by a presentant. A blanket application of Section 77A is not desirable, since the allegations raised may fall under any one of the other provisions of the Act warranting institution of prosecution or for any other action required under the other provisions of the Act.

7. When the allegations and issues are complex and multitude in nature, the authorities competent are empowered to adjudicate all the allegations and issues and pass a comprehensive order and in such circumstances, the Courts cannot set aside the order merely on the ground that Section 77A cannot be applied with retrospective effect. The other issues involved are also to be taken into consideration for the purpose of forming a final opini